Democrats Make Naked Grab For Top Ballot Position

Republicans won the top line on ballots fair and square, a unanimous state Supreme Court said last September.

But last week, Democrats in the General Assembly began a power grab to reverse the court's 7-0 ruling and take back the top line — favorable real estate for the 2014 election.

Frankly, the majority party's use of muscle to possibly gain advantage in the next election is unbecoming. The Democrats should be ashamed.

Even though Democrat Dannel P. Malloy won the gubernatorial election of 2010, Republican Tom Foley got more votes on the Republican line than Mr. Malloy got votes on the Democratic line. Mr. Malloy's winning edge came from votes he got on the Working Families Party line.

Those votes were added to the Democratic total, giving Mr. Malloy the governorship — but not giving his party the top line on the ballot for the next four years.

State law says that the top ballot line goes to "the party whose candidate for governor polled the highest number of votes in the last-preceding election." In the 2010 election, that was the Republican Party, the court ruled, even though Mr. Malloy got the highest total number of votes when third-party votes were included.

Last week, on a party-line vote, the majority Democrats on the Government Administration and Elections Committee pushed legislation out to the House floor that says the party of the governor will take the top line on the ballot in the next gubernatorial election. That means in 2014, ballot-wise, the Democrats are back on top.

Democratic State Sen. Ed Meyer says his party is trying to make certain that Connecticut's law is the same as New York's. Why?

The Democrats' push to reorder the ballot provoked House Republican Leader Larry Cafero to complain: "First, the Democrats ignored the law. Then, when they got caught, they fought the law. Now, having lost 7-0 in the state Supreme Court, they want to change the law. … It is total arrogance."

Democrats can change the law to their favor because they have the numbers. But it doesn't reflect the spirit of the law as it is now written and interpreted by the Supreme Court. It looks brazen and self-serving, and burns up a lot of political capital.